07/26/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T7iomas would like a definition of an efficiency suit in the ordinance to keep people from putting a portable buruer and a sink in a room and calling it an efficiency suite. He suggested Mr. Conway check with HUD for specifications. Mr. Conway will research this. Mr. Orlowski stated that that an efficiency suite should be about 385 to 400 square feet, and the efficiency style apartment unit would make senior living more economically available to a larger group of seniors. Mr. Conway explained the changes he had made in the existing ordinance, specifically the setback requiremeuts, which were based on the Multiple Family setback restrictions relative to the height aud width of the buildiug aud are quite restrictive. If two senior buildings are built adjacent to one another, he sees uo reason that the side yards should be as great especially since there might be access between the two buildings. He has attempted to give the Planning Comvussion the ability determiue side yards and even to attach buildings even if they are on separate parcels of land. He will check into the number of stories that are being proposed in the senior housing developments that are to be presented to the commission in the near future. He believed that the one for St. Clarence had three stories on Lorain and four in the rear because of the topography and that there were some dwelling units on the ground floor on the north side of the building. Mr. Gorris is concerned about changing setbacks, because a developer could come in with sometlung that no one wanted. Mr. Conway explained that he had included that Planning Commission may reduce the requirements if the abutting property is to be used for the elderly. The ordinance will be discussed at the September meeting. A m.emo from the Mayor and a proposed ordiuance for rezoning property on Bradley Road had been presented to the members for their review at the begiuning of the meeting. It was noted in the memo that tlus ordiuance would not be presented to couucil until its next meeting. Mr. Thoinas stated that these areas were highlighted in the master plau, but uot as specifically as some of the focus areas. He noted that there is are about 6 or 7 homes on Wild Oak Drive which were constructed ou land zoned Limited Industry and also that there was a lot that was split zoned in block `B (Residential `B" and Mixed Use). Some of tlus land was suggested to be used as a buffer zone between residential property and industrial. The Space Age Company has an office in Block "A" and another abuttiug Block B(proposed for rezouing), and Mr. Conway noted that he does have a proposal from them to add to the buildiug. He believed that by endiug that zouing they would need the perimeter buffer required between Limited Industry and Residential property. Mr. Thomas does not believe that the Master Plau addressed rezoning block `B", these parcels were discussed duriug the Master Plan study, but no specific recommendations were made. Mr. Goi7-is stated that the split zoned property should be addressed, along with the residentially developed lots that are zoned Limited Industry. Mr. Thoinas stated that the split zoued lots were not shown ou the map presented tlus eveniug, but they were shown that way on the zoiuug map. Mr. Conway's zoning map did not show tlus. Mr. Gorris would like tlus researched. Ms. Woldarski, the Mayor's Adininistrative Assistant, was present and she too would like tlus verified. Assistant City Engineer McDei7nott had prepared this ordinance, and Mr. Thomas stated that one of lus zoning maps indicates that tlus area had uever been rezoned. NIr. McDermott will have to check for the original ordinance. It was clarified that the lot that is definitely split zoned was in block `B" and Space age does ovvu parcel 9 and plans to expand there (tlus is slated for rezouing). Mr. Conway stated that the Limited Industrial area requires a buffer zone around all the Limited Iudustrial property abutting residential. Mr. Tallon advised that there is a 100 foot building setback, but the parking could be within 30 feet of a residential lot. Tlie meinbers agreed that they could still protect the subdivision by changing the codes to increase 6